Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1515/css-2014-0039 |
Kalevi Kull
||
Kalevi Kull: University of Tartu, E-mail: kalevi.kull@ut.ee
1 Introduction
Cultural, linguistic, and biological processes may not have much in common,
except their fundamental semiotic mechanisms. Instead of applying the
classical biological models of evolution to explain the cultural dynamics or
language change (which would mean biologization), it is reasonable to develop
an alternative research strategy to build a semiotic theory of evolution that
would describe how the change occurs in various semiotic systems (and
potentially applicable to culture, language, and living systems). In this study,
we attempt to formulate some principles for such an approach.
According to the neo-Darwinian model, an organism is a system that
includes a self-copying entity (genome), from which all the phenotypical
features derive as the environment permits. Evolutionary change is then
possible due to inexactness of copying (resulting in new genotypes) plus either
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
2)
||
2 Cf. Deacon (2011).
||
5 The term multiviality is from Latin via path.
6 On these concepts see West-Eberhard (2003: 378379).
7 On ententionality see Deacon (2011).
2)
||
8 For instance, Michael Shapiro (2002: 120) states: While there may be several goals of
language change, I wish to argue (anew) that the overarching telos of linguistic change is the
establishment of a pattern not just any pattern but specifically the semiotic kind Peirce
called a diagram. Since diagrams are panchronic signs, it is not surprising that they subtend
both linguistic synchrony and linguistic diachrony. Diagrammatization can be seen as one
species of the process by which unconformities in language are reduced or eliminated over
time. These dynamic tendencies can be couched in Coserius terms: system is brought into
conformity with type, while norms are brought into conformity with system.
9 See also Kirby (2000); Gabora (2013); Kull (2014).
||
10
See Kull (1992). Thus the species is formed by the genetically slightly different organisms
with their individual recognition window that is responsible for the pairwise recognition of
individuals for mating. The usage of iconic signs is sufficient for this process to occur.
11
See further discussion on this aspect in Pattee and Kull (2009), and Kauffman (2013).
2)
Semiotic systems design themselves and introduce new rules that are
non-deducible from (but allowed by) physico-chemical laws. However,
semiotic evolution has tendencies and rules that allow predicting it to a
certain extent.
3 Conclusion
The evolution of semiotic systems is based on the instantiation and inheritance
of sign relations (or habits). New sign relations result from learning and can be
seen as exaptations (changes of function, i.e. changing a relatum in a relation)
in the work of preexisting sign processes. There exist several mechanisms of
learning (e.g. trial and error mechanisms that leads to an iconic relation,
conditioning that leads to an indexical relation, imitation that leads to an
emonic relation, naming that leads to a symbolic relation), while all these work
as problem-solving mechanisms that can establish new sign relations (or habits,
or rules). The role of the copying mechanism is seen as necessary for
inheritance of the relations, while the role of stochastic changes (like mutations)
is seen as the mechanism that may turn the changes irreversible, thus
evolutionary.
Thus we have briefly described the main features and components of the
fundamental mechanisms of semiotic evolution. Since this covers (and also
opens) a large area of processes and phenomena that asks for a detailed
(re)description and (re)explanation on its basis, we can foresee a rich period for
evolutionary semiotics to come.
Acknowledgement: This work is related to the project IUT244 (Semiotic
modeling of self-description mechanisms: Theory and applications), and the
Center of Excellence in Cultural Theory (supported by the European Union
through the European Regional Development Fund).
References
Deacon, Terrence 2011. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. New York: W. W.
Norton & Co.
Gabora, Liane 2013. An evolutionary framework for culture: Selectionism versus communal
exchange. Physics of Life Reviews 10(2): 117145.
Hoffmeyer, Jesper; Kull, Kalevi 2003. Baldwin and biosemiotics: What intelligence is for. In:
Weber, Bruce H.; Depew, David J. (eds.), Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect
Reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Press, 253272.
Kauffman, Stuart 2013. From physics to semiotics. In: Rattasepp, Silver; Bennett, Tyler (eds.),
Gatherings in Biosemiotics. (Tartu Semiotics Library 11.) Tartu: University of Tartu Press,
3046.
Kirby, Simon 2000. Syntax without natural selection: How compositionality emerges from
vocabulary in a population of learners. In: Knight, Chris; Studdert-Kennedy, Michael;
Hurford, James R. (eds.), The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: Social Function and
the Origins of Linguistic Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 303323.
Kull, Kalevi 1992. Evolution and semiotics. In: Sebeok, Thomas A.; Umiker-Sebeok, Jean (eds.),
Biosemiotics: Semiotic Web 1991. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 221233.
Kull, Kalevi 2000. Organisms can be proud to have been their own designers. Cybernetics and
Human Knowing 7(1): 4555.
Kull, Kalevi 2014. Adaptive evolution without natural selection. Biological Journal of the
Linnean Society 112(2):287294.
Lotman, Juri 1990. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London: I.B. Tauris.
Marko, Anton; Grygar, Filip; Hajnal, Lszl; Kleisner, Karel; Kratochvl, Zdenek; Neubauer,
Zdenek 2009. Life as Its Own Designer: Darwins Origin and Western thought. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Moreno, Alvaro; Merelo, Juan Julian; Etxeberria, Arantza 1994. Perception, adaptation and
learning. In: McMullin, Barry; Murphy, Noel (eds.), Autopoiesis and Perception: A
Workshop with ESPRIT BRA 3352. Dublin: Dublin City University, 6570.
Mller, Gerd B.; Newman, Stuart A. (eds.) 2003. Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the
Gene in the Developmental and Evolutionary Biology. (The Vienna Series in Theoretical
Biology.) Cambridge: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.
Newman, Stuart A. 2012. Whats new. Philosophy and Theory of Biology 4(e304): 15.
Pattee, Howard H.; Kull, Kalevi 2009. A biosemiotic conversation: Between physics and
semiotics. Sign Systems Studies 37(1/2): 311331.
Queiroz, Joo; Loula, Angelo 2010. Self-organization and emergence of semiosis. Jornada
Peirceana 13: 239249.
Shapiro, Michael 2002. Aspects of a neo-Peircean linguistics: Language history as linguistic
theory. In: Shapiro, Michael (ed.), The Peirce Seminar Papers: Essays in Semiotic Analysis.
Vol. 5. The State of the Art. Berghahn Books, 108125.
Skagestad, Peter 1979. C. S. Peirce on biological evolution and scientific progress. Synthese 41:
85114.
Uexkll, Jakob von 1982 [1940]. The theory of meaning. Semiotica 42(1): 2582.
West-Eberhard, Mary Jane 2003. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.